🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”